reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.

BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years.

There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver.

The loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more pecisely, Blockalypse I.

1) jbreher's arguments above should serve as evidence that there is still a decent amount of stubborn hopium regarding the presentation of a bitcoin is broken narrative, even if using various misreprsentations and faulty inferences from the presented evidence.

2) spammer BIG blockers like to conveniently forget how much resources they were pumping into spamming BTC's blockchain in mid to late 2017 and more intensely for about two months in December 2017 and January 2018 in order to attempt to provide facts for their narrative that bitcoin is broken due to high transaction fees and slow transaction times. It was a costly endeavor for them, and may have paid off in some ways, but also in mid January 2018 it became somewhat apparent that the amount of resources they were spending to spam the bitcoin blockchain was likely not paying off as much as it was costing, including providing incentives for quasi-rogue white knights in bitcoin to launch lightning network way earlier than any of the more prominent folks in BTC were advicing.. and the spam attack was creating more emergency like conditions in bitcoin, but then suddenly those spam attacks stopped in late January 2018 - causing BTC fees and transaction times to come back down to more normal levels. Of course, BIG blocker nutjob and BTC naysayers still want to use this as their "factual" narrative, but here in jbreher's case, of course, he wants to distract by trying to claim that there were full blocks dating back to early 2017... and even if that were somewhat true, who fucking cares, because the implementation of segwit in August 2017 and its further adopted use in bitcoin had brought a decent amount of additional relief onto bitcoin's main chain.

reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.

BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years.

There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver.

The loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more pecisely, Blockalypse I.

why did i know you couldn´t resist to post here... ? full blocks are ok. fee market is ok. shitcoins are not ok. and bch/bsv... oh dear... i guess they solved the full blocks problem. a blockchain no fucker is using will not have full blocks...

Scumball scammer fuckers and child molesters are using bcash variants. The weather channel is using bcash variants too, and it is proposed that maybe ethereum scumbags are going to use bcash variants too, since kriptokitties broke them down... So soon they will have a certain kind of cyber/make believe pussies ontop of those BIG ASS bcash block variants too... NOT sure if they will fill it up with all that important stuff, but just saying.

The remainder of the peeps including normal fuckers and everybody else is using bitcoin and will most likely continue to use bitcoin, since bitcoin is not broken and also bitcoin has strong foundational principles that are likely to continue to allow bitcoin to scale as we go... with ongoing decent attempts at fee incentives too, that attempt to discourage spamming with bullshit nonsense, like the weather or cryptocats.

Well silver has turned out to be a pretty crappy investment. When adjusted for inflation it is worth less now than its value 50 years ago. Way less. Not a hedge at all. (Silver is about 1/8th the value now as it was in 1979)

Upon performing some complex math, I have approximated that 1979 was 40 years ago - not 50 years ago.

reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.

BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years.

There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver.

The loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more pecisely, Blockalypse I.

Nice try.

It was the ICO boom of 2017 driving up the price of ETH to 35% market dominance.

Quote

ICOs and token sales became popular in 2017. There were at least 18 websites tracking ICOs before mid-year.[12] In May, the ICO for a new web browser called Brave generated about $35 million in under 30 seconds.[citation needed] Messaging app developer Kik's September 2017 ICO raised nearly $100 million. At the start of October 2017, ICO coin sales worth $2.3 billion had been conducted during the year, more than ten times as much as in all of 2016.[13][14] As of November 2017, there were around 50 offerings a month,[15] with the highest-grossing ICO as of January 2018, being Filecoin raising $257 million (and $200 million of that within the first hour of their token sale).[16]

I will consider your proposal, but probably I will NOT change too much whatever I have been doing in regards to that dweeb.

Members here can chose to ignore me if they believe that to be helpful to their own use - regarding how much I quote that lame-brain and any value (or not) that they find therein.

Hey, at least I was not asking his opinion in response to an article... hahahahaha Wasn't that Totscha...the dead grumpy cat... hahahaha.. but when I look back at the quote (here it is for ease of reference), even Totscha was making a bitcoin point, regarding how money is gravitating into bitcoin and even money that historically has been in gold is gravitating into bitcoin, too.

Gotta rub it in, sometimes, so the more I type the more I consider that using dumbass for a spring board is sometimes relevant, at least from my perspective, but on the other hand, if there might be times that I can edit a bit more out from him, while still making whatever point that I need to make, I might make those kinds of changes, if I believe them to be prudent.

reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.

BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years.

There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver.

reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.

BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years.

There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver.

The loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more precisely, Blockalypse I.

Nice try.

It was the ICO boom of 2017 driving up the price of ETH to 35% market dominance.

Quote

ICOs and token sales became popular in 2017. There were at least 18 websites tracking ICOs before mid-year.[12] In May, the ICO for a new web browser called Brave generated about $35 million in under 30 seconds.[citation needed] Messaging app developer Kik's September 2017 ICO raised nearly $100 million. At the start of October 2017, ICO coin sales worth $2.3 billion had been conducted during the year, more than ten times as much as in all of 2016.[13][14] As of November 2017, there were around 50 offerings a month,[15] with the highest-grossing ICO as of January 2018, being Filecoin raising $257 million (and $200 million of that within the first hour of their token sale).[16]

Your timeline does not match up. Your wiki 'evidence' says nothing about pre-May. By 2017 May 1, BTC's dominance had already been slashed from more that 85% in end of Feb to below 60%. Indeed, a look at a chart of cumulative ICO value per month counters your assertion:

I find your posts useful. And mostly you do not quote the more egregious content.

However it is harder to crack down on new posters for quoting roach’s particularly bad content when you freely quote the other stuff.

Thank you for considering this request.

In my case as "new" user on WO, just as example, roach was ignored after about my fifth attempt to initiate a bilateral on-topic discussion.Almost aways this ended in one-liners that led off topic and were just as absurd.The amount that roach postings are quoted is fine for me, but reading through all his repetitive bullshit was too much for me to enjoy reading WO.

reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.

BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years.

There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver.

The loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more precisely, Blockalypse I.

Nice try.

It was the ICO boom of 2017 driving up the price of ETH to 35% market dominance.

Quote

ICOs and token sales became popular in 2017. There were at least 18 websites tracking ICOs before mid-year.[12] In May, the ICO for a new web browser called Brave generated about $35 million in under 30 seconds.[citation needed] Messaging app developer Kik's September 2017 ICO raised nearly $100 million. At the start of October 2017, ICO coin sales worth $2.3 billion had been conducted during the year, more than ten times as much as in all of 2016.[13][14] As of November 2017, there were around 50 offerings a month,[15] with the highest-grossing ICO as of January 2018, being Filecoin raising $257 million (and $200 million of that within the first hour of their token sale).[16]

Your timeline does not match up. Your wiki 'evidence' says nothing about pre-May. By 2017 May 1, BTC's dominance had already been slashed from more that 85% in end of Feb to below 60%. Indeed, a look at a chart of cumulative ICO value per month counters your assertion:

I know you'll hate me for this but is this the right time to get some shitcoins? Maybe with the 0.5% of the crypto portfolio? It can surely go down a lot more but what if It goes up?

XMR and LTC looks so cheap. Especially LTC. Shiet it is 0.007. I dumped mine at somewhere around 0.016 or 0.018 Wew! Feelsgood man. I can get back more than double of what I sold now but not sure If i really want them.

There will be a price point, it will become so cheap, some people won't be able to resist, no matter how pointless and shitty these alts are. It is all part of the speculation.

Maybe It is better to wait for the BTC ATH before making that decision and only then invest %1-3 in shitcoins.

*No need to mention: the aim is to get more bitcoins without getting bamboozled by the altcoin hodlers.** I have that fuckface on ignore and I never ever read the post that quoted him. I advise you to do the same.

For me, the only alt I really bother with is XMR. I believe in that project and I like the devs.Been a great community from the start and continues to be so. I'd pick up some XMR if I were you and also maybe some LTC although technically I find it less interesting. Either way BTC is still the king

reaching 70% dominance. on cmc, which was always rigged in favour of alts.

BTC dominance was always over 80% until the BCH split happened. From that moment on. Or better to say a bit before that, was always uncertainty. Not just BCH steal dominance but also ETH, which many considered as BTC version two. But it ended just as a platform to crowdfund founds with illegal securities. And it seems it lasted for two whole years.

There was an explosion of ICOs at that time. The BCH fork wasn’t a driver.

The loss of dominance was due neither to BCH nor ICOs. 'Twas the Blockalypse. Or more pecisely, Blockalypse I.

1) jbreher's arguments above should serve as evidence that there is still a decent amount of stubborn hopium regarding the presentation of a bitcoin is broken narrative

It's not hopium. Quite the opposite. It's lamentation, you numbskull.

Lamentation filled with hopium. For example, "I wished bitcoin was broken in order that bitcoin supporters would be more receptive to making a lot of worthless changes in order that bitcoin becomes easier to change, merely for the sake of change" or "It sucks that bitcoin works so well, but I will make shit up, anyhow.. hoping and hoping and hoping to my lamenting content that some shit will stick to the wall....."

2) spammer BIG blockers like to conveniently forget how much resources they were pumping into spamming BTC's blockchain in mid to late 2017

Yet the fall off the cliff -- as clearly described above -- was early 2017. So, nice try, no gold star.

Yeah.. right. As if someone died and put you in charge of determining relevant facts including weight to facts and appropriate conclusions to draw from such facts.

I already responded both that your facts are not correct and also, even if they were correct, segwit made a decent dent into the issue, lightning launched in early 2018, and fees and transaction times have largely returned to normal since early 2018 - so you, dumbass (or fellow numbskull) are referring to nearly three year old events, if the blockchain was starting to fill up in early 2017 like you asserted, but I am not going to grant that bullshit assertion to you either because throughout 2017, I did a lot of transactions on bitcoin, and I did NOT have any materially high fees nor slow transaction times for that whole time until after it had been propagandized all fucking year, even though it was a non-issue until between December 2017 and January 2018. You fuck.

TLDR: You are continuing to make shit up in order to march forward with your ongoing replaying of inaccurate narratives that bitcoin is broken and to propose that you dumbasses (or numbskulls) have figured out some kind of solution for bitcoin's supposed (but not actually existing) brokenness to make BIG ASS blocks - which is even dumber than dumb as a solution (even though it sounds good to newbies), and most people who are half aware of bitcoin basics realize that by now.